THEFT CHARGE

Hokitika Guardian, 19 March 1932, Page 2

THEFT CHARGE

COMMISSION AGENT CONVICTED FINED AND RESTITUTION ORDER GREMOUTH, March 17. At the Magi trate’s Court Greyinoutli yesterd y, before Messrs Lynch and Kyle, justices, Edward John Hill a Groymouth business man was charged with theft of £1 Os 6d, th< property of the Greymouth Motors Ltd. Detective Holmes stated that accused was 27 years of age and was the owner or a house, and ran a motor-car. His business was that of a: commission agent, and debt collector. Fbr mine months past money had been, missing from the till at the Grey Motors Ltd., which caused considerable concern among the staff, who felt th' t each was under suspicion. On • ./three occasions du ring the past three weeks, money bad been stolen in cash, and on each occasion, (fccused .had been present about the garage. •At 8.45 o’clock last evening accused was present, -a"d stated to the boy in.charge that he was “.just passing the time away.” He then asked if lie could use the telephone, and the. boy responsible for the money in the till,’ which was for the sale of benzine, I granted him permission. ■Soon after accused had left, continued the evidence, the contents of the till were chocked, and it was found that £1 Os fid was missing. Accused was later ai.pronelied by n°hce ( who asked him to show what money lie was carrying. He denied having taken any from the Grey Motors, but on being taken to the police station and searched, five half crowns, and 1

four two shilling pieces, which had been stolen by him, were found in his possession. In addition to this sum, accused had an amount of £5 8s 6d on him. The theft was all the more despicable because the money had to he acounted for by a lad of only 18 years. Accused had never previously been before the Court, and the police did not think that the theft warranted imprisonment, but considered that a reasonable fine should be imposed. “The Court finds accused guilty of the theft, lie having already pleaded guilty to the charge, and will convict him,” said the Bench. “While there are, some features of the case which, appeal to 'the Rench, we feel that it was a particularly mean theft, and/we are unable to agree to the suppression of the name. Accused is eonvicted and fined £5, in default 14 day’ imprisonment.” A week was allowed in which to pay the fine, and an order for the return of the stolen money was endorsed.